JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - The parties shall be referred to by their status in the revision petition.

2. The petitioners herein are tenants, who have been ordered to be evicted on the ground of bonafide personal necessity of the landlords by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority. While invoking powers under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1949 Act'), the revision petition has been filed assailing the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below.

3. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners, apart from addressing the oral arguments, has also passed on a written note of his submissions, which reads as under:-

1. Whether expression 'own use ' u / s " Section 13 (3) (a) (ii) would not cover the tenanted firm- Sachdeva and Co ' and not entitle the landlord to secure eviction for the need of a tenanted firm', who admittedly in cross examination was admittedly found to be paying rent to landlord?

2. Whether in case of need of tenanted firm', having been . esta